Court Shenanigans & Fun Times: Rulings From Around The Circuits

6th Circuit Rules Debt-Collection Lawyers' Affidavits Not Protected by Immunity

Debt-collection lawyers who file affidavits to obtain garnishments in state courts are fair game for consumers' Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits in federal court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.

The decision marks the first time that a federal circuit has held that a debt-collection lawyer's affidavit is not protected by the absolute immunity commonly granted to witnesses in judicial proceedings.

Both industry and consumer attorneys say this decision means that debt-collection lawyers will have to be more careful in future about what they sign -- or have their clients sign the affidavits.

The 6th Circuit denied absolute immunity to Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., a Cleveland-based national debt-collection practice, and Weltman lawyer Mark N. Wiseman. Plaintiff Robert Todd has accused Wiseman of allegedly filing a false affidavit to initiate a garnishment proceeding in a state collection court. Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., No. 04-4109 (6th Cir.).

The case arises from a relatively common practice in Ohio and other states: A debt collector, having obtained a default judgment against a debtor, tried to satisfy the judgment by filing an affidavit that it had a reasonable basis to believe that the property was nonexempt, or garnishable.

This may be a win for the little guy. We will have to wait to see how this fares in the appellate process.

Judge: No Separate Laws for 'Successful' People

The state does not have separate, more flexible criminal laws governing the actions of the wealthy, a judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., has ruled.

During an altercation in a taxi between defendant John Madsen's girlfriend and their friend Alex Kranjec, Madsen repeatedly punched Kranjec in the face, according to a criminal complaint.

Prosecutors charged Madsen with assault, attempted assault and harassment.

Madsen, a vice president at a financial-brokerage firm, moved to dismiss. His central argument, according to Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr., is that a conviction would "seriously harm his career in finance."

The judge discounted the significance of that harm.

"Even if the defendant had provided the court with evidence of the probability of such negative impact, a dismissal on this basis would say to the community that its most successful members deserve greater consideration by the court than their more modest neighbors," he wrote in People v. Madsen, 2005KN060402.

Perhaps another win for the rest of us... at least in Brooklyn. I wonder if this will be used as a precedent in other cases across the country?